Was Pilate Guilty or Innocent?

Q. Thinking back to illustrations and children’s books from childhood, Pilate is often portrayed as a bad guy. Reading the scriptures now, it seems Herod was always out to get Jesus, but it was Pilate who tried to save Him. He tried to release Him, but in the end he gave into the crowd’s demand to release Barabbas instead. Was Pilate guilty for his actions (he was scared of the people and gave into what they wanted instead of standing up for Jesus) or ‘innocent’ (he was put in his role to fulfill God’s plan for Jesus to be crucified)?

A. Yes Pilate did try to acquit Jesus, five times as a matter of fact:

1. The first was after he interrogated Jesus: Jn 18:38 Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him.” This was also recorded in Lk 23:4
2. The second was after he sent Jesus to Herod: Lk 23:14-15 and said to them, “You brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion, and behold, having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him. No, nor has Herod, for he sent Him back to us; and behold, nothing deserving death has been done by Him.
3. The third time was after he had Jesus flogged: Jn 19:4 Pilate came out again and said to them, “Behold, I am bringing Him out to you so that you may know that I find no guilt in Him.”
4. The fourth time was after the Jews chose to release Barabbas: Lk 23:22 And he said to them the third time, “Why, what evil has this man done? I have found in Him no guilt demanding death; therefore I will punish Him and release Him.”
5. The fifth time was when he finally gave up: Jn 19:6 So when the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out saying, “Crucify, crucify!” Pilate said to them, “Take Him yourselves and crucify Him, for I find no guilt in Him.”

He even claimed innocence in sentencing Jesus to be crucified:
• Mt 24:27 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.”

The first clue of something wrong is why punish Jesus when he found no guilt in Him? And after examining all the evidence, my opinion is that Pilate was guilty and responsible for his role, based on the following. First, his background.

Pilate was the Governor of Judea and Samaria from AD 26-36, answerable only to Emperor Tiberius, not the Jews. However, he had a checkered past in his relationship with the Jews as seen in his handling of:

1. Civil disturbances. Lk 13:1 Now on the same occasion there were some present who reported to Him [Jesus] about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. He was a ruthless man who did not hesitate to use force.
2. Taxes: To build aqueducts he used temple funds, which was strongly objected by the Jews.
3. People: He brought into the temple troops carrying shields and standards bearing the name of Tiberius, which the Jews considered sacrilegious and complained to Caesar.

Not counting the first incident, there were already two strikes against him. So even though he despised the Jews, he was careful to protect his own neck lest they complain to Caesar again, who would dismiss him.

When the Jews first brought Jesus to Pilate, he asked them what were the charges. The Jews tried to evade by saying if He were not an evildoer, they would not have delivered Jesus to him (Jn 18:30). Note that in the Jewish trial before Caiaphas the charge was blasphemy (Mt 26:65; Mk 14:64). But blasphemy was not a capital offense under Roman law, so they changed the charge to sedition:
• Lk 23:2 And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man (1) misleading our nation and (2) forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that (3) He Himself is Christ, a King.”
As governor Pilate’s job was to keep peace, to collect taxes, and to squelch any rival to Caesar, so naturally this aroused his attention.

The first accusation was an outright lie. (2) was exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught:
• Mk 12:17 And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
(3) was true, but not in the political sense:
• Jn 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”
So when Pilate found that Jesus was not talking about a physical kingdom but a spiritual one, he wasn’t concerned and said in Jn 18:38 “What is truth?”

But Pilate was a seasoned politician and always looking for a way out, so when he learned that Jesus was a Galilean and under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod. He did not do things right with the Jews, as a result they had a hold against him. He then played the political game and tried to shift the responsibility to Herod. But why, after repeatedly finding Jesus innocent, did Pilate gave in?

I believe it’s because Pilate’s bottom-line was himself. As governor he was also the judge and required to be just, but he was on report already, and afraid of what this might do for his career. He had the army at his disposal, but if he set Jesus free, there might be a riot (Mt 27:24), or the people might report to Caesar, and he would be finished. In the end he chose political expediency over justice. He gave in to pressure and made the wrong choice; he lacked the courage to stand up for justice. He was afraid to stand up for Jesus because of self-interest, hence his guilt.

Temple Tax and Principles of Interpretation (5 of 5)

(Continued from yesterday)

(4) Did the disciples need to pay this temple tax? The following summarizes opposite views:

YES
• Since they were Jewish males aged over 20, they need to pay
• Jesus’ parable only gave exemption to the sons of the king, not other family members or servants
• The disciples hadn’t received the Holy Spirit yet & hence needed redemption. Also salvation was not by default given by Jesus to all disciples or else Judas Iscariot wouldn’t fall from grace.

NO
• Disciples were servants of the King (some disagreed saying they were no longer servants) and hence treated as family of the King
• Disciples were not only family members, but were sons of God (Rom 8:5; Gal 4:6)

Which view is more convincing, or in effect is this irrelevant because no matter what, the tax collectors will still consider Jesus and also these disciples had a duty to pay the tax?

I think we should draw our conclusion first from the text, and only secondarily from other passages. Let’s go back to Jesus’ answer.

He said, “Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, …” (Mt 17:26-27a). By using “we” instead of “I”, Jesus was including Peter in “sons”. The implication is that Peter, and by extension to other apostles, are “sons of the King” and not strangers, and therefore do not have to pay customs or poll-tax. I therefore side with NO, the disciples do not need to pay. They paid to go above and beyond what was required, not out of necessity, but to fulfill all righteousness.

I also agree that this is perhaps a moot point as outsiders may not see this, and would consider Jesus and His disciples have a duty to pay the tax.

Postlude. I dealt with this passage at considerable length to illustrate the proper use of rules of interpretation – observation, context, both immediate and broad from other Scriptures, exegesis vs. eisegesis etc. Studying the Bible is not a matter of private interpretation (2 Pet 1:20), saying what you want and justifying it by quoting verses out of context. I hope everyone, especially Sunday school teachers, would learn basic hermeneutics well before they teach either verbally or in writing. And I hope if you have rightly divided the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15) you will share it with others.

Temple Tax and Greatness? (4 of 5)

(Continued from yesterday)

I tried to adopt the historical-grammatical approach, but my view is at odd with others:-
e) If Jesus is just to demonstrate humility, kenosis etc., then why did He also pay the tax for Peter? He could simply pay His own. I think He demonstrated to the disciples the rule of the Kingdom of God that whoever wished to be the greater had to serve others, and He exemplified serving Peter by paying for Peter. The immediate preceding text (Mk 9:33-34) tells that inside this house were not only Peter, but all disciples. Before entering the house, they had just argued who was the greatest. The immediate following text (Mk 9:35-37 / Mt 18:1-5) talks about the same thing, so the temple tax incident is the core of the chiastic structure and should revolve around this theme.
Which interpretation is correct?

I have problems about your inserting Mt 17:24-27 in between Mk 9:33-34 and Mk 9:35-37 and calling them immediate preceding and following texts. You yourself noted that the temple tax incident is recorded only in Mt 17:24-27 and not other gospels. Its immediate preceding text is Mt 17:14-21 on the healing of a boy with a demon, and 22-23 on Jesus foretelling His betrayal and resurrection. Its immediate following text is Mt 18:1-6 on rank in the kingdom.

Mk 9:33-37 on who is the greatest is one single unit. It’s immediate preceding text is Mk 9:14-29 on the healing of a boy with an evil spirit, and 30-32 on Jesus foretelling His death and resurrection. Its immediate following text is Mk 9:38-41 on whoever is not against us is for us.

Although the immediate preceding texts of Mt 17:24-27 and Mk 9:33-37 are similar, the immediate following texts are different. You cannot simply insert Mt 17:24-27 into Mk 9:33-37, split the latter into two halves, and call them Mt 17:24-27’s preceding and following texts. Of course they are talking about greatness, because they are actually one unit! Matthew is Matthew and Mark is Mark. You can’t mix the two. It is an artificial construct, and the chiastic structure simply does not apply. I will deal with chiasm in a separate post.

(To be continued)

Did Jesus break Jewish Laws? (3 of 5)

(Continued from yesterday)

b) Another said by voluntarily paying the tax, Jesus taught humility to His disciples.

In interpreting the Bible, there is often a primarily meaning as intended by the author, and other meanings of secondary importance. I do not think teaching humility is the primary meaning here. The context is not about humility.

c) Another said He demonstrated kenosis to the tax collectors.

A basic rule is that we must always discover what it means to the original hearers, before we see what it means to us the current readers. I doubt very much the tax collectors recognized Jesus as God Incarnate emptying (kenosis) and humbling Himself in paying the tax. I don’t think kenosis is the point at all.

d) Yet most commentators linked this to giving Caesar what belonged to Caesar and said He demonstrated to His disciples on submission to the authority because the bible said His act was to avoid offending the tax collectors, but then why did He challenge and break other Jewish laws?

Rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s is a separate teaching. There it was giving to a pagan emperor. Here it is a contribution to God. The only thing common was giving. Submission to authority is taught by the Bible, but I don’t think that’s the point here, as the tribute money was for God, not an earthly authority.

Mt 17:27 says, “so that we do not offend them”. Jesus was never afraid of confronting the Jewish authorities. Why did He make a concession here? First, note that Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not break it. He broke the tradition of the elders, to teach them the spirit of God’s Laws:

• Mt 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
• Mt 15:2-3, 6b Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? … And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
• Mt 7:5, 8-9, 13 The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” … Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. … thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

The two drachma tax was part of the Law, not a tradition of men; therefore Jesus willingly complied. Or it may be that He was a friend of tax collectors and sinners (Mt 11:19; Lk 7:34) and knew that they were only doing their job. So just as He did not need to be baptized by John but did anyway, He paid the tax voluntarily to “fulfill all righteousness” (Mt 3:15).

(To be continued)

Redemption Money (2 of 5)

(Continued from yesterday)

(2) Evidently Peter had to pay this temple tax too (otherwise there was no need for Jesus to pay it for him), but why didn’t the tax collectors also chase Peter for payment? Some commentator said their primary target was Jesus not Peter, so they didn’t bother chasing him. Again my question is the same as above. Would this constitute eisegesis?

The “temple tax” was tribute money started by Moses for the upkeep of the tabernacle, and collected from every male 20 years old and over:

• Ex 30:13-14 This is what everyone who is numbered shall give: half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary (the shekel is twenty gerahs), half a shekel as a contribution to the LORD. Everyone who is numbered, from twenty years old and over, shall give the contribution to the LORD.
• Ex 38:26 a beka a head (that is, half a shekel according to the shekel of the sanctuary), for each one who passed over to those who were numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for 603,550 men.
• 2 Chron 24:9 They made a proclamation in Judah and Jerusalem to bring to the LORD the levy fixed by Moses the servant of God on Israel in the wilderness.

To outsiders, both Jesus and Peter would fall under this law and have to pay the tax. The commentator’s assertion that they may be after Jesus and not Peter is remotely possible, but highly unlikely given the background. Again, I do not see this as eisegesis. He does not seem to be pushing his own preconceived ideas. It is just one not carefully thought out explanation without a systematic bias behind it.

(3) There are different interpretations on Jesus paying the tax. These include:-
a) The temple belonged to God, so as Son of God, Jesus need not pay temple tax. On the other hand, as Son of Man He had to pay it as it was universal for men aged over 20, so it’s a case of struggle within His duality. Other disagreed saying that apart from being used to maintain the temple, this tax has the inherent meaning of redemption of sin and since Jesus did not sin, so even though He was Son of Man, He still need not pay.

The key turns on Jesus’ question and answer:
• Mt 17:25b, 26b From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?” … Then the sons are exempt.

Jesus asked “sons”, not “Son”. He was not referring to Himself as the Son of God, and the Son of Man was never in the picture. So this is not a struggle within His duality, especially when Jesus knew sons are exempt.

Regarding redemption of sins, it is true that when Moses levied this tax, it carried the meaning of atonement:

• Ex 30:12 When you take a census of the sons of Israel to number them, then each one of them shall give a ransom for himself to the LORD, when you number them, so that there will be no plague among them when you number them
• Ex 30:15-16 The rich shall not pay more and the poor shall not pay less than the half shekel, when you give the contribution to the LORD to make atonement for yourselves. You shall take the atonement money from the sons of Israel and shall give it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the sons of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for yourselves.

Jesus did not sin and did not need to make atonement for Himself. So He did not have to pay the tax.

(To be continued)

Temple Tax (1 of 5)

The coin’s image is wrong as the temple tax would never accept Roman coins.

Prelude. This post is long, but touches on principles of interpretation which are applicable elsewhere. Although I have a different view on some of the interpretations, I wish all my members would spend as much effort studying and thinking through their Bible as this enquirer.

Q. This short story in only recorded in Matthew 17:24-27, probably because Matthew himself was a tax collector. However, some problems arise out of this story, which different commentators have given different answers:

(1) Why did the tax collectors asked Peter instead of asking Jesus directly? Was Jesus that difficult to find? How can they expect Peter to answer a question carrying legal responsibility on behalf of his master? I think there is not enough information for an answer, but some commentator said the tax collectors were afraid of facing Jesus, so when they saw Peter, they just asked him. Would this view already construe eisegesis?

As you yourself pointed out, there is not enough information in the passage to tell us why the tax collectors asked Peter and not Jesus directly. But that’s not the point of the incident. Jesus was easy to find. Everywhere He went, crowds gathered around Him e.g. Mt 13:2, Mk 10:1. When they arrested Him in the Garden of Gethsemane, He said:
• Mt 26:55 Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me.

Some feel the tax collectors may not be after the fact whether Jesus actually paid the temple tax; they just want an excuse to trap Him. Knowing that Peter usually speaks before he thinks, they just asked him as an easy prey. I believe this is unlikely. Analyzing a passage is like a detective investigation – you have to examine all the evidence. If you check all references to tax collectors in the NT, although they were looked down upon by the Jews, they were always presented positively in the gospels e.g.
• loving those who love them (Mt 5:46);
• dining with Jesus (Mt 9:10-11; Mk 2:15-16; Lk 5:29-30);
• Jesus’ friends (Mt 11:19; Lk 7:34);
• getting into the kingdom of God by believing John’s message (Mt 21:31-32);
• came to be baptized (Lk 3:12; 7:29); and
• listening to Jesus (Lk 15:1).
Therefore I don’t think they were out to get Jesus. There is no motive.

Based on the gospel evidence, I disagree with the commentator’s view that the tax collectors were afraid of Jesus; I think they actually liked Him. However, I don’t consider the comment to be eisegesis. Eisegesis is interpreting a text by subjectively reading into it one’s own presuppositions, instead of drawing out its meaning through an objective analysis. Here I do not see any agenda from the commentator, only an incidental opinion without careful consideration of the broader background, of why they might ask Peter instead of Jesus. He was not pushing his preconceived notion and forcing the text to fit his mold.

(To be continued)